# Williams v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 15, 1997 · 958 S.W.2d 186

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9659470

## Case

- **Full name:** Frank A. WILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 15, 1997
- **Citations:** 958 S.W.2d 186; 1997 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 79; 1997 WL 631981
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Keller
- **Judges:** Meyers, Mansfield, Keller, McCormigk, Holland
- **Cited by:** 699 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9659470

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, “if an indigent defendant is not entitled to an ex parte hearing on his Ake motion, he is forced to choose between either foregoing the appointment of an expert disclosing to the State in some detail his defensive theories about weaknesses in the State’s case” an…
- finding that the trial court’s erroneous failure to allow an indigent defendant to move ex parte for psychiatric assistance was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and vacating the defendant’s death sentence because, even though information about the expert was discoverable…
- holding that the trial court's erroneous denial of the defendant's request to move for expert psychiatric assistance ex parte was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to the guilt/innocence phase, where no legal defense based upon defendant's mental condition was raised and n…
- stating that under the corpus delecti rule, an extrajudicial confession, standing alone, is not enough to support a conviction; other evidence must exist showing that a crime has in fact been committed
- explaining that appellate courts presume the trial court engaged in the required balancing test once rule 403 is invoked

## Opinion text

KELLER, Judge,
dissenting.
Assume that it was error in this particular case for the trial judge to deny appellant’s motion for leave to file his motion for expert assistance ex parte. The question then arises: is it constitutional error, analyzed under Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(a), or non-constitutional error, analyzed under Rule 44.2(b)? The majority says that the error is constitutional in nature. Op. at fn 4.
Ake error is a violation of due process, but there was no Ake error in this ease—appellant was not denied an expert. The only way the error here could conceivably be considered to be constitutional would be if it somehow resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel. But if the error is ineffective assistance of counsel, in order to prevail appellant must meet the second prong of Strickland, i.e., he must meet the burden of establishing harm. If he meets that prong, he has exceeded what he needs to prove under either (a) or (b) of the harmless error rule, and he gets relief. Appellant would actually be better off if this is non-constitutional error because in that case his burden is less than the burden imposed by the second prong of Strickland. But in any event, the error should not be analyzed, as it is by both the majority and Judge Mansfield, under R. 44.2(a).
If the error here is ineffective assistance of counsel, I would find that appellant has failed to carry his burden of showing harm under Strickland. If the error is a simple violation of the workproduet doctrine, I would find it harmless under R. 44.2(b).
I also disagree with the majority’s treatment of appellant’s first point of error. In my opinion, the law does not require proof of the corpus delicti of the underlying felony in a capital murder case. See Monterrubio v. State, 916 S.W.2d 506 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), (Keller, J. dissenting.)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9659470. Public record. Not legal advice.